AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute between two parties, specifically concerning a no-contact order related to their child. The appellant, who is self-represented, appealed against a district court order that adopted a domestic hearing officer’s report and extended a no-contact order for two years (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court’s failure to hold a hearing on his objections to the hearing officer’s report was contrary to Rule 1-053.2 NMRA (para 2).
• Appellee: Filed a memorandum in opposition to the appellant's appeal, asserting that the case of Rawlings, which mandates a hearing upon objections to a hearing officer’s report, is distinguishable from the current case (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by not holding a hearing on the appellant's objections to the hearing officer’s report in accordance with Rule 1-053.2 NMRA.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court order and remanded the case for the purpose of holding a hearing on the appellant’s objections (para 5).

Reasons

• The decision was authored by Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Megan P. Duffy and Zachary A. Ives concurring. The Court found that the district court issued its order without first holding a hearing, which is required under Rule 1-053.2(H)(1)(b) NMRA. This rule mandates that a hearing must be held upon the filing of objections to a hearing officer’s report. The Court referenced the case of Rawlings v. Rawlings, which interpreted this rule to require a hearing on the objections before the entry of the final order. The Court rejected the appellee's argument that Rawlings was distinguishable and held that a review of the file alone could not satisfy the rule’s requirement for an actual hearing. Consequently, the Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for a hearing in line with Rule 1-053.2 and the precedent set by Rawlings (paras 2-4).